Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Josh Marshall: We're hearing a lot about how Brett Kavanaugh thinks presidents should be largely immune from lawsuits, subpoenas and prosecutorial scrutiny while they serve as president. However during his role in Bill Clinton's Whitewater investigation headed by Ken Starr, Kavanaugh argued for a comically broad theory of what constituted obstruction of justice and impeachable offenses. He suggested that Clinton's efforts to delay being interviewed by the Independent Counsel amounted to obstruction of justice and that lying to his staff and the American people were impeachable offenses. There's quite a lot in the Starr Report. Kavanaugh was largely responsible for writing it. He was also a top aide to George W. Bush for 5 or 6 years. He was involved in countless political and legal decisions -- not least choosing other Supreme Court nominees and the thinking that went into choosing them.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Boy oh boy, can't wait for the hearing testimony when Kavanaugh is confronted with his past statements as it regards presidential lying and avoiding testifying to an IC/SC. I'm sure he's somehow managed to "evolve" depending upon whether the subject in question is a D or an R, as his opposing viewpoints rather blatantly indicate.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-07-10 08:53 AM | Reply

Just a quick peruse of his wiki page suggests he's a partisan stooge.

Like everything else, right wing whining about judicial activism will turn out to mean they're judicial activists to an extent worse than they accused the left of being.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-07-10 12:04 PM | Reply

Only when it was a Dem being questioned. He has already indicated that Trump should not be compelled. He is a political hack and does not belong on the court.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-07-10 12:06 PM | Reply

*circle circle circle*

*flap flap flap*

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-07-10 01:46 PM | Reply

As long as he's consistent, and believes that Trump's many lies are grounds for impeachment, what's the issue? Is he too close to how liberals feel on the subject? If you want to bring criminal charges against the President, impeach them and relieve them of the position. That way the country isn't adversely affected by the CiC being otherwise-engaged, and there's no worry about obstruction of justice or pardons. I'm not sure why that is so confounding to some people.

#5 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-10 02:18 PM | Reply

#4

RoC(heney) finally posts his most intellectual effort. Kudos! You can go home now.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-10 05:33 PM | Reply

RoC(heney) finally posts his most intellectual effort. Kudos! You can go home now.

#6 | POSTED BY CORKY

Wait a gosh darn minute. Fake Lawyer/Joe Dirt can't leave until he cleans all of the toilets.

#7 | Posted by Aborted_monson at 2018-07-10 11:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's start the scrutiny with an honest look at the context and content what he has actually said and written rather than what partisan journalists say he has said or written. Let's take the first sentence of the lede. We're hearing a lot about how Brett Kavanaugh thinks presidents should be largely immune from lawsuits, subpoenas and prosecutorial scrutiny while they serve as president.

When and where did he say that? He hasn't. He has said those should be policy objectives of Congress. He has said not one word that suggests those are his judicial views as constrained by the Constitution, statutes and precedent. In fact, if you look carefully at what he has written on those subjects his views do not bode well for the investigation of the Buffoon, idiot partisan journalists notwithstanding. www.drudge.com

Well how about the second sentence? However during his role in Bill Clinton's Whitewater investigation headed by Ken Starr, Kavanaugh argued for a comically broad theory of what constituted obstruction of justice and impeachable offenses.

Yeah, during his role as prosecutor and advocate he took a broad view of what breaking the law looks like. WTF do you think prosecutors and advocates do, Mr. Marshall?

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 12:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

This has been hilarious and it's only just getting started.

I wish the Democrats would come out and say something like:

"The problem isn't that there are too many conservatives on the court, the problem is that there are wwwwaaaaayyyyy too many court houses and no one seems to like lighting them on fire very much.

It's how the country was founded, and if you want to get someone's attention reach out to them where they eat. Make contact with them where they sleep..."

#9 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-07-11 04:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't matter. He will be approved.

Winning.

#10 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-07-11 05:54 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

There is a difference between perjury and hyperbole (puffery, wishful thinking, etc.). That distinction seems to be lost on many, including the article's author.

#11 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2018-07-11 05:56 AM | Reply

If you want to bring criminal charges against the President, impeach them and relieve them of the position.

If the president is proven to be illegitimate or treasonous, you should support his removal by any means necessary. Hiding behind process arguments is a convenient way to defend the president without addressing his conduct.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-11 07:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If -#12 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-11 07:16 AM

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-11 07:41 AM | Reply

Brilliant retort. Now i know why i come here.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-07-11 07:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We're hearing a lot about how Brett Kavanaugh thinks presidents should be largely immune from lawsuits, subpoenas and prosecutorial scrutiny while they serve as president."

Recipe for dictatorship. Without accountability a President could and some would become absolute dictators. Trump comes to mind.
And yes, I absolutely do agree with Joe in #12. When a President is treasonous as Trump IS, there should be not limit to the actions of the population to remove him. Whatever it takes, hopefully our military would be as courageous as was the Russian military when push came to shove, they refused to fight the Russian people.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 08:20 AM | Reply

"If" our clown of a president to shown to be a traitor more than one person here will support and defend him.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 08:21 AM | Reply

That Donald Trump is attempting to hide himself from justice is evident in what he does everyday.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 08:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Winning."

Winning what? The rights of insurance companies to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, the rights of religious crazies to tell a woman she can't abort the pregnancy caused by a rape? Trumpers need meds badly. You folks a ---- crazy!

#18 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 08:23 AM | Reply

When a president is immune from the law for as long as he is president this creates a powerful incentive for any guilty or power driven, or exceptionally greedy man to stay in office for life, if he can manage it.

THIS dynamic is often seen in dictators, current and past. Unless Trump really is as pure as the driven snow, this is where he's headed.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 08:45 AM | Reply

Winning what? The rights of insurance companies to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, the rights of religious crazies to tell a woman she can't abort the pregnancy caused by a rape? - #18 | Posted by Danni at 2018-07-11 08:23 AM

Why are you against companies and people entering into mutually-agreed-upon contracts?
And the 1st amendment allows "religious crazies" to tell a woman that now. Are you saying that people should lose their freedom of speech?

#20 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-11 08:49 AM | Reply

--If the president is proven to be illegitimate or treasonous, you should support his removal by any means necessary. Hiding behind process arguments is a convenient way to defend the president without addressing his conduct.

Process confers legitimacy. Without it, you are left with witchhunts by power-hungry partisans. It's disturbing that a "lawyer" doesn't know that.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-11 09:02 AM | Reply

--And yes, I absolutely do agree with Joe in #12. When a President is treasonous as Trump IS, there should be not limit to the actions of the population to remove him.

The secret service ought to give an eye on you. "By any means necessary" is an invitation to violence. Not surprising coming from someone who wanted the military to prevent Trump from being inaugurated.

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-11 09:05 AM | Reply

I love it, demos unhinged....

#23 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2018-07-11 09:23 AM | Reply

I love it, demos unhinged....

#23 | Posted by scooter28054

You're one of those who will wear your armband proudly. You're excuse? It unhinges someone, most immediately Jews.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 09:33 AM | Reply

Process confers legitimacy.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian

Mafia hides behind legal technicalities. What's important is guilt or innocence, not your sill and dangerous games.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 09:34 AM | Reply

Mafia hides behind legal technicalities. What's important is guilt or innocence, not your sill and dangerous games.

#25 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2018-07-11 09:34 AM

There is no such thing as a legal technicality. There is just the law. If prosecutors have to break the law to get a conviction then they shouldn't be doing that work.

It sounds like "oops, we forgot to put a period on sentence three of affidavit twelve, I guess you walk from that murder charge," it's more like "well, you're transparently guilty, so they thought it would be okay to deprive you of due process."

getting off on a technicality means "someone broke the law; but not the defendant."

Cops are frequently tempted to bend or break the rules when they believe a person to be factually guilty of a crime. It's the moral dilemma of using bad means to achieve good ends. It's easy for even a moral person to convince themselves that it's okay to break these rules, because a greater good is served by putting away a bad guy who happens to be good at covering up his tracks. This almost invariably leads to a "slippery slope" of rule-breaking, where breaking the smaller rules makes it easier to justify breaking the bigger ones.

Providing for dismissal of charges due to "technicalities" like this provide a disincentive for the police to lie, ignore procedural rules, or otherwise violate the civil rights of suspects.

These procedural rules keep the cops honest. Our justice system operates on the principle that it's better to allow ten guilty men to go free than to imprison a innocent man. Without these procedural rules, more innocent people would be convicted, and the cops would enjoy even a lower level of trust than they have today.

#26 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-07-11 09:46 AM | Reply

-- What's important is guilt or innocence, not your sill and dangerous games.

Exactly the philosophy of a "dirty" cop that plants evidence on suspects. Your disdain for due process is appalling and unAmerican.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-11 09:55 AM | Reply

"Why are you against companies and people entering into mutually-agreed-upon contracts?"

Because I believe that in the richest country on the planet healthcare should be a right not a product for sale to only those who have money. Why do Americans watch other nations give their people great healthcare and then accept what we have? It's just stupid.
Why do you love greedy insurance company executives so much?

#28 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 10:14 AM | Reply

Due process on my lawn! No ques! -
Xenofidian

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-11 10:17 AM | Reply

"The secret service ought to give an eye on you. "By any means necessary" is an invitation to violence."

And a traitor in the WH isn't? Tell that to the victims of Putin in Ukraine. And I never recommended violence, rather I would say huge demonstrations similar to the one's in Moscow that brought down the USSR. The only violence potential was from the military who refused to attack the Russian people.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 10:22 AM | Reply

Just so you know, men die every day fighting against the Russian invaders in Ukraine, that war is not very far from my daughter-in-law's home that she still maintains in Zaporizhia, the residents there are very suspicious about the intentions of Trump in his meeting with Putin. If Trump tells Putin that America will do nothing they are afraid he will invade their city. Don't talk about "violence" when your President plays kissy face with a violent, murdering dictator or worse, several of them.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your disdain for due process is appalling and unAmerican.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-07-11 09:55 AM | Reply

You're the most bloody-minded person I've know this year. I WANT Trump to have due process and any legal consideration he's entitled to. Then if guilty I want him punished according to the magnitude of his crimes, which I anticipate to be severe.

YOU, on the other hand, are an enabler. You love the weeds in your garden, as long as you can smoke them.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2018-07-11 10:29 AM | Reply

Let's not let Nulli distract from the basis for the thread, Kavenaugh thinks Trump should be allowed to do anything he wants, and that does not exclude violence towards Americans, with impunity. It's the definition of dictatorship.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 10:32 AM | Reply

Because I believe that in the richest country on the planet healthcare should be a right not a product for sale to only those who have money...
Why do you love greedy insurance company executives so much? - #28 | Posted by Danni at 2018-07-11 10:14 AM

Let's pretend for a moment that you're not conflating 2 different issues:
If the taxpayers provide basic coverage for everyone's healthcare costs, are you still opposed to companies and citizens reaching mutually-agreed-upon contracts to go beyond that basic coverage?
If so, why?
If not, why the hypocrisy?
I don't need to love greedy insurance company executives to want to allow people to enter into contracts of their choosing. Once again, one of the 2 of us is For the people to be allowed to make their own decisions, and one of us is Against the people being allowed to make their own decisions.

#34 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-11 10:54 AM | Reply

Contract of their own choosing??? When the choices are 1. Pay an insurance company the equivalent of a car payment or mortgage payment each month just in case you get sick or injured so that you hopefully won't go bankrupt OR 2. Go without insurance and potentially without life-saving medical treatment and still go bankrupt. What kind of choice is that?

#35 | Posted by ND_Perspective at 2018-07-11 11:21 AM | Reply

"I don't need to love greedy insurance company executives to want to allow people to enter into contracts of their choosing."

So what? "Allowing people to enter into contracts of their choosing," as you so quaintly put it, results in greedy insurance company executives.

Also, your statement is not reflective of reality.
I want to enter into the contract of my choosing, one where my payments fund a single payer insurance company for all of America.
I am not able to do so, precisely because such a contract is an existential threat to the greedy insurance executives.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 01:07 PM | Reply

"I don't need to love greedy insurance company executives to want to allow people to enter into contracts of their choosing."

If you support the private health insurance industry then yes, you do love greedy insurance company executives. Health insurance companies should be memories.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 01:42 PM | Reply

... Kavenaugh thinks Trump should be allowed to do anything he wants, and that does not exclude violence towards Americans, with impunity. It's the definition of dictatorship.

No, Kavanaugh has said no such thing.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

OJ Harrison5 @OjPats4

The time to give a --- about SCOTUS was before Nov 8, 2016 when we told you people what was at stake.

That's why we were ------ crying on Nov 9th, you smug idiots.
8:21 AM - 11 Jul 2018

Sally Albright @SallyAlbright

This a thousand times. We were disappointed about Hillary but the real tragedy was what we knew the GOP was going to do to women and minorities.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 08:12 PM | Reply

#39 To women and minorities, I would add the LGBT community, the working poor, people with pre-existing conditions and immigrants.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 08:17 PM | Reply

Hasn't anybody noticed yet? Republicans operate in lockstep and the Democrats do not. Kavanaugh is a shoe in.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned the backlash will be enormous and Trump will be a one term President. If abortion remains legal, the evangelicals will abandon Trump and he will be a one term President.

#41 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-07-11 08:25 PM | Reply

#41

Sounds like a win win.

And don't fret much over Roe. It ain't likely to be overturned.

#42 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kavanaugh's Record Doesn't Bode Well for Voting Rights

He voted to uphold a law that threatened to disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters.

www.motherjones.com

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 09:07 PM | Reply

"And don't fret much over Roe. It ain't likely to be overturned."

Looks like Et_Al snorted the whole Magic 8 Ball at once and now he's in a frenzy.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 09:08 PM | Reply

What Happens If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned? Anthony Kennedy's Retirement Raises The Possibility

There are infinite ways the court could go about repealing Roe, as it would depend largely on the judicial challenge that leads the court to reconsider the ruling. Such a ruling could take many forms, and it's impossible to say exactly what it would look like. The overturning of Roe wouldn't result in abortion immediately becoming illegal nationwide; however, it would allow states to pass laws that completely ban abortion.

Some states won't have to: Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota have already passed laws that automatically ban abortion if Roe is overturned.

Likewise, there are ten states that still have pre-Roe laws on the books banning abortion. Those laws are currently unenforced because of Roe, but they'll become the law of the land if the court strikes Roe down. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

www.bustle.com

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 09:21 PM | Reply

Abortion foes seize on chance to overturn Roe

State and federal lawmakers push new restrictions in pursuit of a winning court challenge.

The anti-abortion movement believes it's one Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice away from a shot at overturning Roe v. Wade, and advocates are teeing up what they hope will be the winning challenge.

From Iowa to South Carolina, lawmakers are proposing some of the most far-reaching abortion restrictions in a generation, hoping their legislation triggers the lawsuit that eventually makes it to the high court.

www.politico.com

It's a promise he ran on, and it's the promise he intends to fulfill:

Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
www.cnbc.com

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 09:25 PM | Reply

"Where to Start Scrutinizing Kavanaugh"

I know: Has anyone seen his long-form birth certificate???

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-07-11 09:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rosenstein asks federal prosecutors for help in review of Kavanaugh documents

General Rod Rosenstein has asked federal prosecutors to help the Department of Justice (DOJ) review Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's government documents, according to a report in The New York Times that notes the request is an unusual injection of politics into the law enforcement duties of the department.

Rosenstein made the request in an email sent to the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

In it, Rosenstein asks each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors "who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks."

Rosenstein said in the email that he expected he would need the equivalent of 100 full-time lawyers to work on Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. The work will reportedly be supervised by the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy in Washington.

thehill.com

#48 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 09:32 PM | Reply

"Attorney" got cut off! LOL

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 09:35 PM | Reply

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Kavanaugh and voting rights. Have you read the opinion, Gal? It is an utterly predicable result and rationale by a Judge bound by existing precedent. It is also an exposition of his noted attribute for writing clearly and simply. Here's his introductory summary:

This case concerns South Carolina's new voter ID law, Act R54. The question presented is whether that new state law is lawful under the federal Voting Rights Act. As relevant here, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act bars state laws that have either the purpose or the effect "of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a). The effects prong of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act measures a State's proposed new voting law against the benchmark of the State's pre-existing law.

For several decades, South Carolina has had a voter ID law. Under the version of the law in effect since 1988, a voter must show a South Carolina driver's license, DMV photo ID card, or non-photo voter registration card in order to vote. Under that pre-existing South Carolina law, a voter with a non-photo voter registration card need not show a photo ID in order to vote. As we will explain, South Carolina's new law, Act R54, likewise does not require a photo ID to vote. Rather, under the expansive "reasonable impediment" provision in Act R54 – as authoritatively interpreted by the responsible South Carolina officials, an interpretation on which we base our decision today – voters with the non-photo voter registration card that sufficed to vote under preexisting law may still vote without a photo ID. Those voters simply must sign an affidavit at the polling place and list the reason that they have not obtained a photo ID.

In addition, Act R54 expands the kinds of photo IDs that may be used to vote – adding passports, military IDs, and new photo voter registration cards to the driver's licenses and DMV photo ID cards already permitted by pre-existing law. Moreover, Act R54 minimizes the burden of obtaining a qualifying photo ID as compared to pre-existing law. The new law creates a new type of photo ID – namely, photo voter registration cards – which may be obtained for free at each county's elections office. Also, under Act R54, DMV photo ID cards may be obtained at each county's DMV office for free; those cards cost $5 under pre-existing law. In short, Act R54 allows citizens with non-photo voter registration cards to still vote without a photo ID so long as they state the reason for not having obtained one; it expands the list of qualifying photo IDs that may be used to vote; and it makes it far easier to obtain a qualifying photo ID than it was under pre-existing law. Therefore, we conclude that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina's pre-existing law. We also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose. Act R54 as interpreted thus satisfies Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and we grant pre-clearance for South Carolina to implement Act R54 for future elections beginning with any elections in 2013. As explained below, however, given the short time left before the 2012 elections, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law – particularly the new "reasonable impediment" provision – and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory retrogressive effects on African-American voters in 2012, we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 11:26 PM | Reply

Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case

Many Presidents have been disappointed by the ruling of their court appointments. On this issue I think the Buffoon will be chagrined. I gave my reasons here and here.

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 11:36 PM | Reply

Susan Hennessey @Susan_Hennessey

Read @NoahRFeldman making the compelling (and I think correct) case that Kavanaugh's law review articles on presidential investigations are *bad* news for Trump.

Kavanaugh's Papers Don't Help Trump Avoid Indictment

Opponents of the Supreme Court nominee are reading him all wrong.

www.bloomberg.com

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 11:40 PM | Reply

Rosenstein asks federal prosecutors for help ...

When faced with a monumental task, one seeks monumental assistance, as the article explains. How is Rosenstein's problem a knock against Kavanaugh's qualification to sit on the SC?

#53 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 11:41 PM | Reply

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

I posted a thread on that subject by Lawfare's Benjamin Wittes. www.drudge.com Good eye, Gal.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 11:44 PM | Reply

Well, it would be interesting if Kennedy negotiated with Trump for months to get Kavanaugh nominated to replace him, only to have tricked Trump into appointing someone who would be more like Kennedy in his rulings than Trump had bargained for. I don't think that is what happened, or will happen, but it would be interesting if that is the case.

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 11:46 PM | Reply

"How is Rosenstein's problem a knock against Kavanaugh's qualification to sit on the SC?"

I don't believe the article implies that.

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-07-11 11:54 PM | Reply

... if Kennedy negotiated ...

We don't know whether that happened or not. If it did, my memory from reading The Brethren many moons ago, suggests it's not necessarily unusual. Nor would I expect it to be.

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-12 12:08 AM | Reply

"How is Rosenstein's problem a knock against Kavanaugh's qualification to sit on the SC?"
I don't believe the article implies that.

Then what's the point of the article? We got a s**t ton of work to do ain't particularly newsworthy. So, I disagree.

#58 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-12 12:13 AM | Reply

SCOTUS is a piece of s#!# institution, partisan, ideologically blinded, and totally blind to the revolutionary idea that individual rights trump power and money. Originally, our Federal Government had no say in the regulation of Corporations, which were chartered according to State Law and subject dissolution for violation of the law. No anymore, thanks to Federal Courts, which have granted Corporations the same rights as human beings, even equating money with free speech. Totally absurd and an outrageous violation of original intent, which they pretend to cherish. Kavanaugh's appointment will not change anything. Kennedy was of the same mindset. But he will outlive Kennedy and force rule by Corporations down everyone's throat for another generation.

#59 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-07-12 01:30 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort